Abstract

Citations (2)

Footnotes (251)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id677544. ; Size: 305K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

The Ultimate Gender Stereotype: Equalizing Gender-Conforming and Gender-Nonconforming Homosexuals Under Title VII

While gay men and lesbians have increasingly gained legal rights in many areas of the law, they have not been as successful in the context of employment litigation, specifically in the realm of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Because sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII, gender-nonconforming homosexuals - that is, effeminate gay men and masculine lesbians - have utilized the Supreme Court's opinion in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to argue that they were discriminated against by their employers or coworkers because they failed to conform to gender stereotypes, which is evidence of sex discrimination under Title VII. On the other hand, gender-conforming homosexuals - that is, masculine gay men and feminine lesbians - have, until now, not been able to make this sort of gender stereotyping argument. This note takes up that issue.

After broadening the definition of gender to include both an idealized (anchor) and an idiosyncratic (expressive) component, the author argues that there is an ultimate gender stereotype in play when homosexual employees are discriminated against for failing to conform to gender expectations. Unlike the previous gender stereotyping theory, however, the ultimate gender stereotype incorporates sexual preference into a homosexual's expressive gender. The author argues further that, because of its breadth, the ultimate gender stereotype equalizes gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming homosexuals under Title VII.